Mobilization for Climate Justice

Archive for January, 2012

Natural disasters in 2011 exerted the costliest toll in history — a whopping $380 billion worth of losses from earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, tsunamis and more. Only a third of those costs were covered by insurance. And the tally ignores completely any expenses associated with sickness or injuries triggered by the disasters.

The single priciest events last year were the magnitude 9 earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which wrought some $210 billion worth of devastation, followed in second place by the series of earthquakes in New Zealand that triggered $16 billion worth of destruction, notes Ernst Rauch of Munich Reinsurance corporate headquarters in Munich.

Known as Munich RE, his firm is among a handful of major international corporations that insure insurance companies against failing. So it’s crucial that reinsurers know natural disasters intimately — where they’ve happened, how often, what’s caused them, how much damage they wreak and what recovery from them will cost. Munich RE has compiled one of the largest databases of natural catastrophes going back to 1980 globally, and to 1970 for U.S. and select European events.

After sifting through it, on Jan. 4 Rauch and a few others professional disaster analysts attempted to put 2011 in context. Costly as the Asian quakes were, they don’t point to any huge up-tick in geological activity, Rauch noted.  Earth’s tremors in 2011 were on a par with most years over the past three decades. Last year’s in Asia just proved especially costly because they occurred within wealthy nations at densely populated sites — many of them well-indemnified.

In contrast, he noted, what hasn’t maintained a constant pace over time have been the numbers of storms, droughts and wildfires. These weather and climate-related events have been climbing steadily since 1980, increasing in number, severity (such as average wind intensity) and often in lives lost. That trend, Rauch said, provides strong evidence that climate change is already impacting human suffering and the world’s economies.

Carl Hedde of Munich RE America described 2011 as the Year of the Tornado. U.S. statistics show that the 552 twister-related fatalities made tornados the deadliest since 1925. There were 158 deaths associated with the Joplin, Mo., twister alone. April spawned 748 tornadoes — 226 of them on just one day. Six thunderstorm events associated with twisters chalked up losses exceeding $1 billion each and the late April tornadoes in Alabama and May twister in Joplin together racked up $6 billion in damage catapulting these events into the top 10 costliest natural catastrophes in U.S. history.

The lower Mississippi River experienced the worst flooding since 1927 owing to heavy snowmelt, saturated soils and more than 20 inches of rainfall in just one month. The estimated economic damage: $2 billion, of which only one-quarter was insured.

Texans have suffered through the worst wildfire year on record, fueled by a persistent drought. Throughout the spring of 2011, more than 3 million acres of west Texas ignited, destroying more than 200 homes and businesses (insured collectively for $50 million). In September, fires near San Antonio destroyed more than 1,600 additional homes (insured for $530 million)

Overall, last year, 820 natural catastrophes occurred — 150 fewer than the year before but well above the three-decade-long average of 630. The monetary value of 2011’s losses, however, were more than twice as high as those a year earlier and about three and a third times the previous decade’s average.

There have been some important economic lessons in these data for insurers, observes Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute in New York City. Although insurance companies entered 2011 with hardy cash reserves, they quickly spent them down. In the United States, for instance, insurers paid out about $1.16 for every $1 in premiums they took in from homeowners. Not the way to stay solvent. So, he warned, policyholders should expect premiums to climb, especially in parts of the country that insurers anticipate could be hit hard by storms in this and coming years.

I was chatting with a Munich RE analyst over dinner two years ago at conference in which we were both participating. He had just returned from several trips to Florida scouting its housing stock. Owing to sea level rise and the region’s susceptibility to hurricanes, he said, it was looking decreasingly likely that reinsurers would want to back flood insurance for waterfront property in much of the state. Once reinsurers back out, he warned, homeowners’ insurance would get either prohibitively expensive or nonexistent. Already, he said, there were some sites where he would peg the annual cost of covering flood damage at amounts about equal to the market value of the home.

Insurers take climate change very seriously, he explained. In fact, he added, for much of his industry global change issues have moved to the front and center of its radar screen.

Note: This article is cross-posted from the RT.  The states it is the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news. -The GJEP Team

Published: 07 January, 2012

Freedom of speech might allow journalists to get away with a lot in America, but the Department of Homeland Security is on the ready to make sure that the government is keeping dibs on who is saying what.

Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the written permission to retain data on users of social media and online networking platforms.

Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally aware and informed.”

According to the Department of Homeland Security’s own definition of personal identifiable information, or PII, such data could consist of any intellect “that permits the identity of an individual to be directly or indirectly inferred, including any information which is linked or linkable to that individual.” Previously established guidelines within the administration say that data could only be collected under authorization set forth by written code, but the new provisions in the NOC’s write-up means that any reporter, whether someone along the lines of Walter Cronkite or a budding blogger, can be victimized by the agency.

Also included in the roster of those subjected to the spying are government officials, domestic or not, who make public statements, private sector employees that do the same and “persons known to have been involved in major crimes of Homeland Security interest,” which to itself opens up the possibilities even wider.

The department says that they will only scour publically-made info available while retaining data, but it doesn’t help but raise suspicion as to why the government is going out of their way to spend time, money and resources on watching over those that helped bring news to the masses.

The development out of the DHS comes at the same time that U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady denied pleas from supporters of WikiLeaks who had tried to prevent account information pertaining to their Twitter accounts from being provided to federal prosecutors. Jacob Applebaum and others advocates of Julian Assange’s whistleblower site were fighting to keep the government from subpoenaing information on their personal accounts that were collected from Twitter.

Last month the Boston Police Department and the Suffolk Massachusetts District Attorney subpoenaed Twitter over details pertaining to recent tweets involving the Occupy Boston protests.

The website Fast Company reports that the intel collected by the Department of Homeland Security under the NOC Monitoring Initiative has been happening since as early as 2010 and the data is being shared with both private sector businesses and international third parties.

Further information:

Privacy Compliance Review of the NOC Media Monitoring Initiative Department of Homeland Security

Advertisement

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Note: Thanks to Wikileaks for releasing this most revealing information on how the corporate United States’ government is continuing the war on, and genocide of, Indigenous Peoples.  A special thanks to Brenda Norrell for Censored News that covers Indigenous Peoples and Human Rights.  Censored News is one of Global Justice Ecology Projects favorite sites.  Please check it out.

Yesterday Climate Connections posted  Amador Hernández Thanks GJEP for Medical Support; a letter from that community in the Lacandon jungle in Chiapas, Mexico. The letter ends with a phrase in Tzotzil – Te Nix Ya Llil sba Te me Yax Chamotik ta Lucha (Anyway we are going to die in the struggle).  Indigenous Peoples’ struggle has been ongoing for 500+ years in this hemisphere.

-The GJEP Team

Best of the Best 2011 #1 Wikileaks revelations
By Brenda Norrell
Censored News

In the Censored News pick for the Best of the Best in 2011, Wikileaks claims first prize. Wikileaks exposed the US corporate schemes, espionage, promotion of mining and efforts globally to halt passage of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

-
Wikileaks revealed extensive espionage of Indigenous Peoples, including the Mapuche and Mohawks, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales, who ushered in a new Indigenous global rights campaign.

-
The release of the US diplomatic cables of the US State Department confirmed that the US feared the power of Indigenous Peoples, specifically their claims to their traditional territories, a right stated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Further, the Declaration states the right of free, prior and informed consent before development proceeds and protects intellectual and cultural property rights.

-
Here’s the top six ways that the United States and Canada, as revealed by Wikileaks, worked against the rights of Indigenous Peoples, by engaging in espionage and the promotion of mining, while violating Indigenous autonomy, self determination and dignity.

-
1. The United States worked behind the scenes to fight the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Ecuador, the US established a program to dissuade Ecuador from supporting the Declaration. In Iceland, the US Embassy said Iceland’s support was an “impediment” to US/Iceland relations at the UN. In Canada, the US said the US and Canada agreed the Declaration was headed for a “train wreck.”

-
2. The United States targeted and tracked Indigenous Peoples, community activists and leaders, especially in Chile, Peru and Ecuador. A cable reveals the US Embassy in Lima, Peru, identified Indigenous activists and tracked the involvement of Bolivian President Evo Morales, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Bolivia Ambassador Pablo Solon, prominent Mapuche and Quechua activists and community leaders. President Chavez and President Morales were consistently watched, and their actions analyzed. Indigenous activists opposing the dirty Tar Sands were spied on, and other Indigenous activists in Vancouver, prior to the Olympics.

-
3. The United States was part of a five country coalition to promote mining and fight against Indigenous activists in Peru. A core group of diplomats from U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. In other illegal corporate profiteering, Peru’s government secretly admitted that 70-90 percent of its mahogany exports were illegally felled, according to a US embassy cable revealed by Wikileaks. Lowe’s and Home Depot sell the lumber.

-
4. Canada spied on Mohawks using illegal wiretaps. Before Wikileaks hit the headlines, it exposed in 2010 that Canada used unauthorized wiretaps on Mohawks.

-
Wikileaks: “During the preliminary inquiry to Shawn Brant’s trial, it came out that the Ontario Provincial Police, headed by Commissioner Julian Fantino, had been using wiretaps on more than a dozen different Mohawks without a judge’s authorization, an action almost unheard of recent history in Canada.”

-
4. The United States and Canada tracked Mohawks. In one of the largest collections of cables released so far that targeted Native people and named names, the US Embassies in Montreal and Toronto detailed Mohawk activities at the border and in their communities.

-
5. The arrogant and insulting tone of the US Embassies and disrespect for Indigenous leaders is pervasive in US diplomatic cables. The US Embassy in Guatemala stated that President of Guatemala, Álvaro Colom, called Rigoberta Menchu a “fabrication” of an anthropologist and made other accusations. Menchu responded on a local radio station that Colom was a “liar.”

-
6. The collection of DNA and other data, makes it clear that US Ambassadors are spies abroad. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton states that the Intelligence Community relies on biographical information from US diplomats. In cables to Africa and Paraguay, Clinton asked US Embassy personnel to collect address books, e-mail passwords, fingerprints, iris scans and DNA.

-“The intelligence community relies on State reporting officers for much of the biographical information collected worldwide,” Clinton said in a cable on April 16, 2009. Clinton said the biographical data should be sent to the INR (Bureau of Intelligence and Research) for dissemination to the Intelligence Community.

-
Meanwhile, the US was part of a five country team that supported mining as Indigenous Peoples were dying to protect their homeland.

-
The arrogance of the US and its cheerleading for corporate copper mining in Peru is obvious in two cables just released from Wikileaks. The diplomatic cables reveal the US promoting multi-national corporations, while targeting Indigenous activists and their supporters.

-
The cables reveal that a core group of diplomats formed an alliance with mining companies to promote and protect mining interests globally. The diplomats were from the U.S., Canada, U.K., Australia, Switzerland and South Africa.

-
Read more at http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2011/02/wikileaks-peru-us-ambassador-targeted.html

-
The US spied on the Mohawks in Canada, as revealed in these diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. Canadian border guards admitted that they feared the Mohawks: http://censored-news.blogspot.com/2011/05/wikileaks-cables-on-mohawks.html

-
Wikileaks exposed the fact that not only were Indigenous Peoples spied on globally by the US State Department, but those who supported them were also spied on. Actor and activist Danny Glover was the focus of at least five US diplomatic cables.

Advertisement

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

U.S. Federal Judge Denies Company’s Motion to Attach Assets

New York, NY – Chevron has lost yet another legal round over its increasingly furious effort to evade paying an $18 billion judgment in Ecuador for causing environmental damage in the Amazon rainforest, according to a decision released by a U.S. federal judge today.

Just days after an appellate panel in Ecuador upheld the $18 billion judgment against the oil giant upheld the $18 billion judgment against the oil giant. U.S. federal judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the company’s motion to attach the assets of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs.

The decision also comes just weeks after Chevron was exposed for trying to bribe Ecuador’s government to quash the case by making a “donation” to an environmental project and reports surfaced that the company tried to corrupt the court process in Ecuador by using a secret lab.

Kaplan also denied a request by Chevron for a restraining order preventing the Ecuadorians and their lawyers from selling any portion of the claims so they could finance the litigation. The Ecuadorians had argued that Chevron’s motion was nothing more than an attempt to dry up support for their 18-year case, thereby denying them legal counsel and the ability to enforce the Ecuador judgment.

“This decision is another rebuke for Chevron and it comes on the heels of a devastating defeat in the appellate court of Ecuador,” said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the 30,000 Ecuadorians who have accused the oil giant of dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into their ancestral lands.

Chevron had argued to Kaplan that the Ecuador judgment was based on “fraud” and therefore was not entitled to be enforced, even in countries outside the U.S. Chevron stripped its assets from Ecuador and has said it will not comply with the judgment.

Lawyers for the rainforest communities had argued that Chevron’s motion had no legal basis and that the judgment in Ecuador is based on a wide body of scientific evidence. See here and here. The company caused one of the worst environmental disasters in history, decimating five indigenous groups and causing an outbreak of cancer.

The communities also argued that Chevron had the ability to block any enforcement actions by the Ecuadorians by simply posting a bond while it appeals to Ecuador’s highest court. Chevron reported profits of roughly $30 billion in 2011 and total assets of more than $204 billion.

“The relief Chevron seeks is improper and unprecedented,” argued Craig Smyser, a U.S. lawyer for the Ecuadorians, in a letter to Judge Kaplan. Smyser noted that the remedy sought by Chevron had never been granted in U.S. history under similar facts.

“Chevron’s latest histrionics and hysteria justify neither a temporary restraining order nor an order of attachment,” Smyser said in his letter, which was submitted before Kaplan issued his decision.

Chevron faces another problem – its lead outside law firm in the Ecuador matter, Gibson Dunn Crutcher, has come under increasing attack for orchestrating a string of legal setbacks that imperil the interests of company shareholders, according to a recent blog in the Huffington Post.

The blog noted that since Gibson Dunn entered the matter two years ago, Chevron has been hit with an $18 billion judgment at the trial court in Ecuador, lost the appellate decision in Ecuador, and was reversed by a U.S. federal appeals court last September in its unprecedented effort to seek a worldwide injunction to block enforcement of the Ecuador judgment.

Gibson Dunn also faces mounting ethical questions about its sharp-edged litigation practices in the Ecuador matter, which recent led a federal court to sanction and fine Chevron after finding that a Gibson Dunn lawyer harassed a witness in the Ecuador matter.

In Ecuador, the trial court imposed a punitive damages award to the plaintiffs after finding Chevron’s lawyers tried to delay and undermine the proceedings by threatening a judge with jail time if he did not rule in the company’s favor.

For additional recent news on the case, see the San Francisco Chronicle, the Miami Herald, CNN, and ChevronToxico.com.

Advertisement

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

U.S. Federal Judge Denies Company’s Motion to Attach Assets

New York, NY – Chevron has lost yet another legal round over its increasingly furious effort to evade paying an $18 billion judgment in Ecuador for causing environmental damage in the Amazon rainforest, according to a decision released by a U.S. federal judge today.

Just days after an appellate panel in Ecuador upheld the $18 billion judgment against the oil giant upheld the $18 billion judgment against the oil giant. U.S. federal judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied the company’s motion to attach the assets of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs.

The decision also comes just weeks after Chevron was exposed for trying to bribe Ecuador’s government to quash the case by making a “donation” to an environmental project and reports surfaced that the company tried to corrupt the court process in Ecuador by using a secret lab.

Kaplan also denied a request by Chevron for a restraining order preventing the Ecuadorians and their lawyers from selling any portion of the claims so they could finance the litigation. The Ecuadorians had argued that Chevron’s motion was nothing more than an attempt to dry up support for their 18-year case, thereby denying them legal counsel and the ability to enforce the Ecuador judgment.

“This decision is another rebuke for Chevron and it comes on the heels of a devastating defeat in the appellate court of Ecuador,” said Karen Hinton, the U.S. spokesperson for the 30,000 Ecuadorians who have accused the oil giant of dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into their ancestral lands.

Chevron had argued to Kaplan that the Ecuador judgment was based on “fraud” and therefore was not entitled to be enforced, even in countries outside the U.S. Chevron stripped its assets from Ecuador and has said it will not comply with the judgment.

Lawyers for the rainforest communities had argued that Chevron’s motion had no legal basis and that the judgment in Ecuador is based on a wide body of scientific evidence. See here and here. The company caused one of the worst environmental disasters in history, decimating five indigenous groups and causing an outbreak of cancer.

The communities also argued that Chevron had the ability to block any enforcement actions by the Ecuadorians by simply posting a bond while it appeals to Ecuador’s highest court. Chevron reported profits of roughly $30 billion in 2011 and total assets of more than $204 billion.

“The relief Chevron seeks is improper and unprecedented,” argued Craig Smyser, a U.S. lawyer for the Ecuadorians, in a letter to Judge Kaplan. Smyser noted that the remedy sought by Chevron had never been granted in U.S. history under similar facts.

“Chevron’s latest histrionics and hysteria justify neither a temporary restraining order nor an order of attachment,” Smyser said in his letter, which was submitted before Kaplan issued his decision.

Chevron faces another problem – its lead outside law firm in the Ecuador matter, Gibson Dunn Crutcher, has come under increasing attack for orchestrating a string of legal setbacks that imperil the interests of company shareholders, according to a recent blog in the Huffington Post.

The blog noted that since Gibson Dunn entered the matter two years ago, Chevron has been hit with an $18 billion judgment at the trial court in Ecuador, lost the appellate decision in Ecuador, and was reversed by a U.S. federal appeals court last September in its unprecedented effort to seek a worldwide injunction to block enforcement of the Ecuador judgment.

Gibson Dunn also faces mounting ethical questions about its sharp-edged litigation practices in the Ecuador matter, which recent led a federal court to sanction and fine Chevron after finding that a Gibson Dunn lawyer harassed a witness in the Ecuador matter.

In Ecuador, the trial court imposed a punitive damages award to the plaintiffs after finding Chevron’s lawyers tried to delay and undermine the proceedings by threatening a judge with jail time if he did not rule in the company’s favor.

For additional recent news on the case, see the San Francisco Chronicle, the Miami Herald, CNN, and ChevronToxico.com.

Advertisement

Leave a Comment

Filed under Actions, Chiapas, Climate Justice, Indigenous Peoples, Latin America

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Leave a Comment

Filed under Actions, Chiapas, Climate Justice, Indigenous Peoples, Latin America

Leave a Comment

Filed under Actions, Indigenous Peoples, Climate Change, KPFK, Posts from Anne Petermann, Greenwashing, REDD, Energy, Carbon Trading, UNFCCC, False Solutions to Climate Change, Durban/COP-17, Corporate Globalization, Green Economy

Tagged as Climate Change, Climate Justice, indigenous rights, UN Climate talks, activists, REDD, UNFCCC, protest, KPFK, indigenous peoples, margaret prescod, pollution, action, africa, z magazine, big green patriarchy

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Leave a Comment

Filed under Actions, Carbon Trading, Climate Change, Corporate Globalization, Durban/COP-17, Energy, False Solutions to Climate Change, Green Economy, Greenwashing, Indigenous Peoples, KPFK, Posts from Anne Petermann, REDD, UNFCCC

Tagged as action, activists, africa, big green patriarchy, Climate Change, Climate Justice, indigenous peoples, indigenous rights, KPFK, margaret prescod, pollution, protest, REDD, UN Climate talks, UNFCCC, z magazine

The March outside of the Conference of Polluters in Durban. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

Burlington, VT–Global Justice Ecology Project’s Anne Petermann,  Orin Langelle and Jeff Conant along with Keith Brunner and Lindsey Gillies will give a report back from last month’s controversial UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa on Wednesday, January 11, at the Fletcher Free Library Community Room in Burlington, Vermont from 6:30 to 8:30 pm.  All five presenters were in Durban for the climate negotiations.

Fletcher Free Library is located at 235 College Street in Burlington, VT.  Burlington Action Against Nukes and the Environmental Action Group of Occupy Burlington are sponsoring the event, which is free and open to the public.

“The Durban disaster marks the lost decade in the fight against climate change,” said Anne Petermann, Executive Director of GJEP, whose international office is in Hinesburg, VT. ”These talks accomplished nothing except to delay any implementation of a UN plan to stop climate change until 2020,” she stated.

Both Petermann and Brunner were carried out of the talks by UN security, ejected from the UN grounds and turned over to the South African police for staging an unpermitted sit-in protest of the corporate take-over of the negotiations. [1] Gillies was also ejected.

Earlier that week, photojournalist Orin Langelle, on assignment for Z Magazine, had his camera shoved into his face by a UN security officer because Langelle was taking a photograph of the officer ejecting a person who was giving an interview to the media following a UN-approved Global Justice Ecology Project press conference. This incident led Langelle to file a formal complaint against UN security. [2] Langelle will show his documentary photographs of the “Durban Disaster” at the upcoming event.

Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project’s Communications Director who was also present in Durban, will take part via live-stream from the GJEP Oakland, CA office to discuss the perspectives of other climate justice groups on the Durban negotiations.

The entire two weeks in Durban were marred with controversy, which included the corporate takeover of the UN climate talks, heavy handed security measures to prevent civil society participation in the talks, and the attempt by “Big Green” Non Governmental Organizations (i.e. Greenpeace and 350.org) to control a major “Occupy” protest there.  This attempted control of dissent prompted Petermann to write a controversial critique of the big NGOs, titled “Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the Big Green Patriarchy.” [3]

Notes:

[1] Global Justice Ecology Project Director Anne Petermann Ejected from COP17   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3hX

[2] Formal Complaint Filed Against UN Security Actions in Durban  http://wp.me/pDT6U-3jy

[3] Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the ‘Big Green’ Patriarchy   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3iE

Advertisement

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

The March outside of the Conference of Polluters in Durban. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

Burlington, VT–Global Justice Ecology Project’s Anne Petermann,  Orin Langelle and Jeff Conant along with Keith Brunner and Lindsey Gillies will give a report back from last month’s controversial UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa on Wednesday, January 11, at the Fletcher Free Library Community Room in Burlington, Vermont from 6:30 to 8:30 pm.  All five presenters were in Durban for the climate negotiations.

Fletcher Free Library is located at 235 College Street in Burlington, VT.  Burlington Action Against Nukes and the Environmental Action Group of Occupy Burlington are sponsoring the event, which is free and open to the public.

“The Durban disaster marks the lost decade in the fight against climate change,” said Anne Petermann, Executive Director of GJEP, whose international office is in Hinesburg, VT. ”These talks accomplished nothing except to delay any implementation of a UN plan to stop climate change until 2020,” she stated.

Both Petermann and Brunner were carried out of the talks by UN security, ejected from the UN grounds and turned over to the South African police for staging an unpermitted sit-in protest of the corporate take-over of the negotiations. [1] Gillies was also ejected.

Earlier that week, photojournalist Orin Langelle, on assignment for Z Magazine, had his camera shoved into his face by a UN security officer because Langelle was taking a photograph of the officer ejecting a person who was giving an interview to the media following a UN-approved Global Justice Ecology Project press conference. This incident led Langelle to file a formal complaint against UN security. [2] Langelle will show his documentary photographs of the “Durban Disaster” at the upcoming event.

Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project’s Communications Director who was also present in Durban, will take part via live-stream from the GJEP Oakland, CA office to discuss the perspectives of other climate justice groups on the Durban negotiations.

The entire two weeks in Durban were marred with controversy, which included the corporate takeover of the UN climate talks, heavy handed security measures to prevent civil society participation in the talks, and the attempt by “Big Green” Non Governmental Organizations (i.e. Greenpeace and 350.org) to control a major “Occupy” protest there.  This attempted control of dissent prompted Petermann to write a controversial critique of the big NGOs, titled “Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the Big Green Patriarchy.” [3]

Notes:

[1] Global Justice Ecology Project Director Anne Petermann Ejected from COP17   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3hX

[2] Formal Complaint Filed Against UN Security Actions in Durban  http://wp.me/pDT6U-3jy

[3] Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the ‘Big Green’ Patriarchy   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3iE

Advertisement

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

The March outside of the Conference of Polluters in Durban. Photo: Petermann/GJEP-GFC

Burlington, VT–Global Justice Ecology Project’s Anne Petermann,  Orin Langelle and Jeff Conant along with Keith Brunner and Lindsey Gillies will give a report back from last month’s controversial UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa on Wednesday, January 11, at the Fletcher Free Library Community Room in Burlington, Vermont from 6:30 to 8:30 pm.  All five presenters were in Durban for the climate negotiations.

Fletcher Free Library is located at 235 College Street in Burlington, VT.  Burlington Action Against Nukes and the Environmental Action Group of Occupy Burlington are sponsoring the event, which is free and open to the public.

“The Durban disaster marks the lost decade in the fight against climate change,” said Anne Petermann, Executive Director of GJEP, whose international office is in Hinesburg, VT. ”These talks accomplished nothing except to delay any implementation of a UN plan to stop climate change until 2020,” she stated.

Both Petermann and Brunner were carried out of the talks by UN security, ejected from the UN grounds and turned over to the South African police for staging an unpermitted sit-in protest of the corporate take-over of the negotiations. [1] Gillies was also ejected.

Earlier that week, photojournalist Orin Langelle, on assignment for Z Magazine, had his camera shoved into his face by a UN security officer because Langelle was taking a photograph of the officer ejecting a person who was giving an interview to the media following a UN-approved Global Justice Ecology Project press conference. This incident led Langelle to file a formal complaint against UN security. [2] Langelle will show his documentary photographs of the “Durban Disaster” at the upcoming event.

Jeff Conant, Global Justice Ecology Project’s Communications Director who was also present in Durban, will take part via live-stream from the GJEP Oakland, CA office to discuss the perspectives of other climate justice groups on the Durban negotiations.

The entire two weeks in Durban were marred with controversy, which included the corporate takeover of the UN climate talks, heavy handed security measures to prevent civil society participation in the talks, and the attempt by “Big Green” Non Governmental Organizations (i.e. Greenpeace and 350.org) to control a major “Occupy” protest there.  This attempted control of dissent prompted Petermann to write a controversial critique of the big NGOs, titled “Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the Big Green Patriarchy.” [3]

Notes:

[1] Global Justice Ecology Project Director Anne Petermann Ejected from COP17   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3hX

[2] Formal Complaint Filed Against UN Security Actions in Durban  http://wp.me/pDT6U-3jy

[3] Showdown at the Durban Disaster: Challenging the ‘Big Green’ Patriarchy   http://wp.me/pDT6U-3iE

Advertisement

Note: It sure would be nice if the US incorporated some justice-based and scientific approaches to their climate change mitigation actions, but we’re not holding our breath…

–The GJEP Team

New Report Reviews 10-Year Plan for Federal Program On Climate and Global Environmental Change Research 

Date:  Jan. 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — The draft 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) — which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government — is “evolving in the right direction,” but several key issues could strengthen these planning efforts, says a new reporthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 from the National Research Council.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP’s scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step.  However, the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed.  There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program.

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use.  It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency’s individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said.  Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions.  For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

*   offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
*   establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
*   employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
*   more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, is an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter granted to the NAS in 1863.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Draft Strategic Planhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.eduhttp://www.nap.edu/.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

#       #       #

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warren M. Washington1 (chair)
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Kai N. Lee (vice chair)
Program Officer
Conservation and Science Program
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Los Altos, Calif.

Mark R. Abbott
Dean and Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Doug Arent
Executive Director
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colo.

Susan K. Avery
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas
Austin

Thomas Dietz
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Professor of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy, and Animal Studies
Michigan State University
East Lansing

Henry D. Jacoby
Professor of Management, and
Co-Director
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Maria Carmen Lemos
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Ian Roy Noble
Chief Scientist
Global Adaptation Institute
Washington, D.C.

Camille Parmesan
Associate Professor of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin

Karen C. Seto
Associate Professor of the Urban Environment
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Kathleen J. Tierney
Professor of Sociology, and
Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado
Boulder

Charles J. Vorosmarty
Director
Global Environmental Sensing and Water Sensing Initiative, and
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
City University of New York
New York City

John M. Wallace
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle

Gary W. Yohe
Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Wesleyan University
Middletown, Conn.

Article source: GJEP Climate Connections Blog

Note: It sure would be nice if the US incorporated some justice-based and scientific approaches to their climate change mitigation actions, but we’re not holding our breath…

–The GJEP Team

New Report Reviews 10-Year Plan for Federal Program On Climate and Global Environmental Change Research 

Date:  Jan. 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — The draft 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) — which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government — is “evolving in the right direction,” but several key issues could strengthen these planning efforts, says a new reporthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 from the National Research Council.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP’s scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step.  However, the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed.  There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program.

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use.  It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency’s individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said.  Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions.  For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

*   offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
*   establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
*   employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
*   more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, is an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter granted to the NAS in 1863.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Draft Strategic Planhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.eduhttp://www.nap.edu/.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

#       #       #

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warren M. Washington1 (chair)
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Kai N. Lee (vice chair)
Program Officer
Conservation and Science Program
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Los Altos, Calif.

Mark R. Abbott
Dean and Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Doug Arent
Executive Director
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colo.

Susan K. Avery
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas
Austin

Thomas Dietz
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Professor of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy, and Animal Studies
Michigan State University
East Lansing

Henry D. Jacoby
Professor of Management, and
Co-Director
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Maria Carmen Lemos
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Ian Roy Noble
Chief Scientist
Global Adaptation Institute
Washington, D.C.

Camille Parmesan
Associate Professor of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin

Karen C. Seto
Associate Professor of the Urban Environment
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Kathleen J. Tierney
Professor of Sociology, and
Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado
Boulder

Charles J. Vorosmarty
Director
Global Environmental Sensing and Water Sensing Initiative, and
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
City University of New York
New York City

John M. Wallace
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle

Gary W. Yohe
Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Wesleyan University
Middletown, Conn.

Note: It sure would be nice if the US incorporated some justice-based and scientific approaches to their climate change mitigation actions, but we’re not holding our breath…

–The GJEP Team

New Report Reviews 10-Year Plan for Federal Program On Climate and Global Environmental Change Research 

Date:  Jan. 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — The draft 10-year strategic plan for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) — which shapes and coordinates climate and related global environmental change research efforts of numerous agencies and departments across the federal government — is “evolving in the right direction,” but several key issues could strengthen these planning efforts, says a new reporthttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 from the National Research Council.

The committee that wrote the report found that the proposed broadening of USGCRP’s scope to address not only climate change but also other climate-related global changes is appropriate and an important step.  However, the draft plan does not always acknowledge significant challenges, such as increasingly constrained budget resources, involved in meeting its goals, nor does it offer clear strategies for how such challenges could be addressed.  There is also the practical challenge of maintaining clear boundaries for an expanded program.

The committee emphasized the need to identify initial steps the program would take to achieve the proposed broadening of its scope, develop critical science capacity that is now lacking, and link the production of knowledge to its use.  It also stressed that without a strong governance structure that could compel reallocation of funds to serve overarching priorities, the program would likely continue as merely a compilation of efforts deriving from each member agency’s individual priorities.

Broadening the program to better integrate the social and ecological sciences, inform climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, and emphasize decision support is welcome and essential for meeting the legislative mandate for the program, the committee said.  Nevertheless, implementing this wider scope requires more than incremental solutions.  For instance, there is insufficient expertise within member agencies in the social and ecological sciences, and some agencies lack clear mandates to develop the needed expertise.

The report also suggests that the USGCRP plan could be strengthened by:

*   offering a more coherent summary of past important accomplishments, including an assessment of successes that were possible only because of USGCRP actions;
*   establishing clear processes for setting priorities and phasing in and out elements of the program;
*   employing iterative processes for periodically evaluating and updating the program and its priorities; and
*   more carefully defining the education, communication, and work-force development efforts that belong within the program and which efforts would be best organized by entities outside the program.

The study was sponsored by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The National Research Council, the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, is an independent, nonprofit institution that provides science and technology advice under a congressional charter granted to the NAS in 1863.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pre-publication copies of A Review of the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Draft Strategic Planhttp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13330 are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at http://www.nap.eduhttp://www.nap.edu/.  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).

#       #       #

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Earth and Life Studies
Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

Committee to Advise the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Warren M. Washington1 (chair)
Senior Scientist
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Boulder, Colo.

Kai N. Lee (vice chair)
Program Officer
Conservation and Science Program
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Los Altos, Calif.

Mark R. Abbott
Dean and Professor
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences
Oregon State University
Corvallis

Doug Arent
Executive Director
Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, Colo.

Susan K. Avery
President and Director
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.

Robert E. Dickinson1,2
Professor
Department of Geological Sciences
University of Texas
Austin

Thomas Dietz
Assistant Vice President for Environmental Research, and
Professor of Sociology, Environmental Science and Policy, and Animal Studies
Michigan State University
East Lansing

Henry D. Jacoby
Professor of Management, and
Co-Director
Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change
Sloan School of Management
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Maria Carmen Lemos
Professor
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Ian Roy Noble
Chief Scientist
Global Adaptation Institute
Washington, D.C.

Camille Parmesan
Associate Professor of Integrative Biology
University of Texas
Austin

Karen C. Seto
Associate Professor of the Urban Environment
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
New Haven, Conn.

Kathleen J. Tierney
Professor of Sociology, and
Director
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
University of Colorado
Boulder

Charles J. Vorosmarty
Director
Global Environmental Sensing and Water Sensing Initiative, and
Professor
Department of Civil Engineering
City University of New York
New York City

John M. Wallace
Professor
Department of Atmospheric Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle

Gary W. Yohe
Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies
Wesleyan University
Middletown, Conn.